The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

[rdb3]

January 23, 2005

EDITORIAL

The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

ritics of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution become more wily with each passing year. Creationists who believe that God made the world and everything in it pretty much as described in the Bible were frustrated when their efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools or inject the teaching of creationism were judged unconstitutional by the courts. But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster.

One line of attack - on display in Cobb County, Ga., in recent weeks - is to discredit evolution as little more than a theory that is open to question. Another strategy - now playing out in Dover, Pa. - is to make students aware of an alternative theory called "intelligent design," which infers the existence of an intelligent agent without any specific reference to God. These new approaches may seem harmless to a casual observer, but they still constitute an improper effort by religious advocates to impose their own slant on the teaching of evolution.•

The Cobb County fight centers on a sticker that the board inserted into a new biology textbook to placate opponents of evolution. The school board, to its credit, was trying to strengthen the teaching of evolution after years in which it banned study of human origins in the elementary and middle schools and sidelined the topic as an elective in high school, in apparent violation of state curriculum standards. When the new course of study raised hackles among parents and citizens (more than 2,300 signed a petition), the board sought to quiet the controversy by placing a three-sentence sticker in the textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography. Evolution is so awful that the reader must be warned that it is discussed inside the textbook. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts. The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus.

The third sentence, urging that evolution be studied carefully and critically, seems like a fine idea. The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment. Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.

A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. Although the sticker makes no mention of religion and the school board as a whole was not trying to advance religion, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution. In particular, the sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. That court decision is being appealed. Supporters of sound science education can only hope that the courts, and school districts, find a way to repel this latest assault on the most well-grounded theory in modern biology.•

In the Pennsylvania case, the school board went further and became the first in the nation to require, albeit somewhat circuitously, that attention be paid in school to "intelligent design." This is the notion that some things in nature, such as the workings of the cell and intricate organs like the eye, are so complex that they could not have developed gradually through the force of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic variations. Instead, it is argued, they must have been designed by some sort of higher intelligence. Leading expositors of intelligent design accept that the theory of evolution can explain what they consider small changes in a species over time, but they infer a designer's hand at work in what they consider big evolutionary jumps.

The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania became the first in the country to place intelligent design before its students, albeit mostly one step removed from the classroom. Last week school administrators read a brief statement to ninth-grade biology classes (the teachers refused to do it) asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact, that it had gaps for which there was no evidence, that intelligent design was a differing explanation of the origin of life, and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students, who were, of course, encouraged to keep an open mind. That policy, which is being challenged in the courts, suffers from some of the same defects found in the Georgia sticker. It denigrates evolution as a theory, not a fact, and adds weight to that message by having administrators deliver it aloud. •

Districts around the country are pondering whether to inject intelligent design into science classes, and the constitutional problems are underscored by practical issues. There is little enough time to discuss mainstream evolution in most schools; the Dover students get two 90-minute classes devoted to the subject. Before installing intelligent design in the already jam-packed science curriculum, school boards and citizens need to be aware that it is not a recognized field of science. There is no body of research to support its claims nor even a real plan to conduct such research. In 2002, more than a decade after the movement began, a pioneer of intelligent design lamented that the movement had many sympathizers but few research workers, no biology texts and no sustained curriculum to offer educators. Another leading expositor told a Christian magazine last year that the field had no theory of biological design to guide research, just "a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions." If evolution is derided as "only a theory," intelligent design needs to be recognized as "not even a theory" or "not yet a theory." It should not be taught or even described as a scientific alternative to one of the crowning theories of modern science.

That said, in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course. But school boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life.

[shubi]

Science welcomes criticism. However, the Bible is not a source for cogent criticism. It is religion.

On top of that, creationism misinterprets the Bible. There is less credibility in the peculiar literalist take the creationist have on the Bible than their science. At least they have no science. The theology they present turns people away from God and is therefore a negative occurrence.

[rdb3]

Yep, creation science/ID is an attempt to corrupt our children and destroy science education.

You don't find the irony here in your statements? Before this, you said, and I quote, "...superstitious nonsense passed off as Christian doctrine."

[AndrewC]

There is no comparison between the two!

Go back to your delusions. The argument was based on falsifiability.

[shubi]

I'd say I have seen one too many of your bigoted posts.

Are you really one of those that tries to make intelligent Christians like myself, look stupid?

[shubi]

Give it up Andrew. We all see now that you are just bluffing.

[shubi]

There is only irony in your own mind. Passing off nonsense as science hurts our whole country. Education is bad enough in this country, without silly cults adding to the problem.

[WildTurkey]

[Sorry, I don't have the citations.]

Why am I not surprised ...

[LiteKeeper]

Since this is an area that I am particularly interested in, and have studied quite a bit, please enlighten me on the evidence for your criticism.

BTW - science doesn't welcome all criticism, just tht which meets their criteria for "science."

[AndrewC]

This is what we observe with sickle cell anemia in malarial areas.

It is not a positive to have the trait. It is just less negative when the carrier is infected by malaria when compared to an infected non-carrier. Negative mutations have been shown to persist.

[shubi]

"There's nothing cryptic about it. Yes, it takes intelligence to observe a rock. It also takes design. How else is any information going to be conveyed so that the observer knows he is looking at a rock as opposed to a Freudian slip? Both intelligence and design are needed before science can even get a start. Understand?"

"Looking at a rock as opposed to a Freudian slip".
Yeah that is clear as mud.

Ok, I have had all the laughs I can take for one evening.
God bless

[Outraged]

Who says that those who teach or support the teaching of evolution deny the possibility of God. I am not aware that anyone on the science side of this debate maintains that, it is purely a fiction of the religious fundamentalists that to believe in evolution is to deny God.

Evolutionists tend to disavow God in the process of exercising their finite intellects on understanding the temporal...If you are proposing God is like a chef who makes his cake (evolves it) from ingredients, hence the cake's contents are lower life forms of the evolved creature (the cake, if you will), then I suppose I sort of agree with this theory...But if you are saying the simple self-evolved into the complex, and atomic or genetic random manifested itself in the human, spontaneously, I would disagree, as would science.

There is no evidence that we "evolved" from lower life forms, on the contrary, the similarities between humans and lower life forms suggests a single designer or Creator, whose hand is on all things...His style is reflected in every thing and creature here and in the heavens.

There is good reason why Creation is dominating evolutionary theory. There is good reason why God-rejecting evolutionists are scurrying away from debate. Evolutionary theory disclaims moral law and the byproduct time and again is chaotic rationalism, poverty and genocide when taken to a national level.

[Alacarte]

Teachers are forbidden by law from questioning evolution.

Their job is to teach science. Refusing to teach evolution is like refusing to teach gravity. Evolution is science, at least according to the scientific community. Unless you can provide a link otherwise... I have tons of links to major science institutions denouncing ID and supporting evolution, just ask... But I'm really curious to see how you back up your claim that evolution is not true.

[AndrewC]

We all see now that you are just bluffing.

It is your delusions. Take a pill and relax.

[shubi]

Andrew, sickle cell is a positive survival trait in malarial areas. You really need to understand the basics of biology before you can discuss biology with a biologist.

[Fester Chugabrew]

On the contrary, technology for the past 400 years has advanced exponentially, even with your evil darwinism."

More like "in spite of" Darwinism. None of the discplines you mentioned excelled due to Darwinism. Science excels where critical thinking is employed. That seems to be out of vogue in certain public schools these days.

was just responding to you saying the church didn't hurt science, I didn't start the discussion, sorry.

By "conjectural recapitulations of history" I meant the Philosophy of Evolution, not your question about the history of science. The Philosophy of Evolution is a mental construct that attempts to ascribe scientific merit to itself. It's not working.

[balrog666]

Pink Creationist Flamingos? "Think" again.

[Alacarte]

My point is that science can do very well without the Philosophy of Evolution.

So you dismiss the life sciences as philosophy? Whens the last time a philosophy gave us a vaccine or unlocked the secrets of hereditary diseases!

If IDers being unable to understand a scientific theory made it invalid, I suspect my keyboard would be floating right now.

[shubi]

There are some churches scientists won't go to, or if they do they get battered with pressure to change their views, like Gallileo. Many scientists react to the ignorance of these churches by rejecting Christ altogether. They think all Christians are ignorant hicks. The push to get ID nonsense into schools has led to the secular backlash of taking out all references to God. The creationists have aided the cause of secularism, by taking such superficial and silly positions, it makes it easy to discredit Christianity in general.

The churches that do this are the ones that believe in creationism/ID. They turn it into a salvational issue and they reject the teachings of Jesus and the Gospel in doing so. I would be glad to discuss the particulars of this by private mail, as I too have studied the problem of negative evangelism.

Science defines scientific terms, not superstitious misinterpreters of the Bible.

[general_re]

ALS in drag, I'm thinking.

[AndrewC]

Andrew, sickle cell is a positive survival trait in malarial areas. You really need to understand the basics of biology before you can discuss biology with a biologist.

You're not a biologist, you just play one on FR. I have investigated the sickle trait. It involves low O₂ levels. What do you know about it?

Consequently, sickle cell haemoglobin (HbS) replaces normal adult HbA in the red blood cells. This apparently trivial alteration to the b-globin gene alters the quaternary structure of haemoglobin which, in turn, has a profound influence on the physiology and well-being of an individual.

Haemoglobin S is less efficient at carrying oxygen than normal haemoglobin. It is also much less soluble and begins to crystallise as the oxygen concentration falls, as it does in the capillaries of the tissues.